Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Elaborate What Teachers Should Learn? Five Steps for Content Specification of Professional Development Programs, Exemplified By “Moves Supporting Participation in Classroom Discussions”

Wie spezifiziert man, was Lehrkräfte lernen sollen? Fünf Schritte der Inhalts-Spezifizierung für Professionalisierungsprogramme, exemplifiziert am Inhalt „partizipationsförderliche Impulse“

  • Originalarbeit/Original Article
  • Published:
Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims at widening the discussion on the research-based design of professional development (PD) programs: from the prevailing “how-questions” (with their focus on the pedagogy and didactical principles for PD) to the “what-questions.” What-questions focus on the specification of the content in the PD program that should surmount deficit-oriented views on teachers’ perspectives. The presentation of a five-step program for the theoretically and empirically grounded process of content specification of a PD program is exemplified by the content “moves supporting participation in classroom discussions.”

Zusammenfassung

Der Artikel zielt auf eine Ausweitung der Diskussion um forschungsbasierte Professionalisierungsprogramme: von den vorherrschenden „Wie-Fragen“ (mit Fokus auf Methoden und didaktische Prinzipien) zu den „Was-Fragen“. Was-Fragen fokussieren auf die Inhalts-Spezifizierung jenseits der beliebigen Gegenstandskonstitution und defizitorientierten Perspektiven. Vorgestellt wird ein Fünf-Schritte-Programm für einen theoretisch und empirisch begründeten Prozess der Inhalts-Spezifizierung, und zwar am Beispielinhalt „partizipationsförderliche Impulse in Unterrichtsgesprächen“.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Literatur

  • Adler, J., Ball, D., Krainer, K., Lin, F.-L., & Novotna, J. (2005). Reflections on an emerging field: Researching mathematics teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60(3), 359–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, S. J. (2008). Teacher language awareness. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Knowledge about language (Vol. 6, pp. 287–298). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwell, R. (Ed.). (2009). Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms (pp. 1–13). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwell, R., Leung, C., & Morgan, C. (2005). Applied linguistics and mathematics education: More than words and numbers. Language and Education, 19(2), 141–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, H., & Ball, D. L. (2004). A practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching: The case of mathematical reasoning. In W. Jianpan & X. X. Binyan (Eds.), Trends and challenges in mathematics education (pp. 107–123). Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauersfeld, H. (1995). “Language games” in the mathematics classroom: Their function and their effects. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning. Interaction in classroom cultures (Vol. 2, pp. 271–291). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauersfeld, H., Krummheuer, G., & Voigt, J. (1985). Interactional theory of learning and teaching mathematics and related microethnographical studies. In H. G. Steiner & H. Vermandel (Eds.), Foundations and methodology of the discipline mathematics education (didactics of mathematics) (pp. 174–188). Antwerpen: University of Antwerpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2009). Unterrichtskommunikation als Mittel der Kompetenzentwicklung. In M. Becker-Mrotzek (Ed.), Mündliche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik (pp. 103–115). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider-Verlag Hohengehren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Mrotzek, M., & Quasthoff, U. M. (1998). Unterrichtsgespräche zwischen Gesprächforschung, Fachdidaktik und Unterrichtspraxis. Der Deutschunterricht, 50(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kulka, S., & Snow, C. E. (1992). Developing autonomy for tellers, tales, and telling family narrative events. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 2(3), 187–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, O. (2014). Understanding mathematics education through teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(3), 199–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Civil, M. (2006). Working towards equitiy in mathematics education: A focus on learners, teachers, and parents. In S. Alatorre, J. L. Cortina, M. Sáiz & A. Méndez (Eds.), Proceedings of 28th Annual Meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 1, pp. 30–50). Mérida: Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.). (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohors-Fresenborg, E., & Kaune, C. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität: Die Rolle von Diskursivität für „guten“ gymnasialen Mathematikunterricht. In H.-W. Henn (Ed.), Beiträge zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 173–180). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, K., & Adler, J. (1996). Teachers as researchers in mathematics education. In A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 1187–1205). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80. (Republished in his book Experience and Education, 1938. Reprinted 1998 in West Lafayette, Indiana by the Kappa Delta Pi Honorary Society in Education).

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction—A framework for improving teaching and learning science. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research in Europe (pp. 13–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erath, K., Vogler, A.-M., Prediger, S., Heller, V., & Quasthoff, U. (2014). Interaktive Verfahren der Enkulturation von Lernenden in fachspezifische Praktiken im Mathematik- und Deutschunterricht. In J. Roth & J. Ames (Eds.), Beiträge zum Mathematikuntericht (pp. 1349–1350). Münster: WTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellert, U. (2009). Zur Explizierung strukturierender Prinzipien mathematischer Unterrichtspraxis. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 30(2), 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gellert, U., Hernández, R., & Chapman, O. (2013). Research methods in mathematics teacher education. In M. A. Clements, A. J. Bishop, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Third international handbook of mathematics education (Vol. 27, pp. 327–360). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol: TES.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogolin, I. (2009). “Bildungssprache”—The importance of teaching language in every school subject. In T. Tajmel (Ed.), Science education unlimited. Approaches to equal opportunities in learning science (pp. 91–102). Münster: Waxmann.

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harren, I. (2013). Sprachförderung im Unterrichtsgespräch – Integration unterstützenden Feedbacks bei der Versprachlichung naturwissenschaftlicher Inhalte. In E. Grundler & R. Vogt (Eds.), Unterrichtskommunikation. Grammatik, Experimente, Gleichungen (pp. 13–29). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, R. (2011). Language and education: Learning and teaching in society. London: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timberley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausendorf, H., & Quasthoff, U. (1996). Sprachentwicklung und Interaktion: Eine linguistische Studie zum Erwerb von Diskursfähigkeiten bei Kindern. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, V. (2012). Kommunikative Erfahrungen von Kindern in Familie und Unterricht. Passungen und Divergenzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, V. (2015). Academic discourse practices in action: Invoking discursive norms in mathematics and language lessons. Linguistics and Education. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.003. (in press).

  • Heller, V., & Morek, M. (2015). Unterrichtsgespräche als Erwerbskontext: kommunikative Gelegenheiten für bildungssprachliche Praktiken erkennen und nutzen. Leseforum.ch, (3) 2015.

  • Helmke, A. (2010). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Seelze: Klett/Kallmeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2005). Can scientific research answer the ‘what’ question of mathematics education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosoda, Y., & Aline, D. (2013). Two preferences in question-answer sequences in language classroom context. Classroom Discourse, 4(1), 63–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hußmann, S., & Prediger, S. (2016, in press). Specifying and structuring the content of exponential growth—questions and approaches on the formal, epistemological, semantic, and cognitive level. To appear in Journal für Mathematikdidaktik, 37.

  • Jablonka, E., & Gellert, U. (2011). Equity concerns about mathematical modelling. In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W. Secada & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education (pp. 223–236). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, H., Steinbring, H., Voigt, J., & Wollring, B. (2001). Interpretative classroom research in teacher education. In H. G. Weigand, A. Peter-Koop, N. Neill, K. Reiss, G. Törner & B. Wollring (Eds.), Developments in mathematics education in Germany (pp. 49–56). Hildesheim: Franzbecker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattmann, U., Duit, R., & Gropengießer, H. (1998). Educational reconstruction—Bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions. In B. Bayrhuber & F. Brinkman (Eds.), What, Why, How? Proceedings of the First European Conference on Didaktik of Biology (ERIDOB) (pp. 253–262). Kiel: IPN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klafki, W. (1958). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Die Deutsche Schule, 50(1), 450–471. Reprinted in English: Klafki, W. (1995). Didactic analyses as the core of preparation for instruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(1), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komorek, M., Fischer, A., & Moschner, B. (2013). Fachdidaktische Strukturierung als Grundlage für Unterrichtsdesigns. In M. Komorek & S. Prediger (Eds.), Der lange Weg zum Unterrichtsdesign: Zur Begründung und Umsetzung genuin fachdidaktischer Forschungs- und Entwicklungsprogramme (pp. 43–62). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions. Assertive questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krainer, K. (2005). Was guter Mathematikunterricht ist, müssen Lehrende ständig selber erarbeiten! Spannungsfelder als Orientierung zur Gestaltung von Unterricht. In C. Kaune, I. Schwank & J. Sjuts (Eds.), Mathematikdidaktik im Wissenschaftsgefüge: Zum Verstehen und Unterrichten mathematischen Denkens (Vol. 1, pp. 165–178). Osnabrück: Forschungsinstitut für Mathematikdidaktik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krainer, K., & Stern, T. (2004). Mathe ist mehr! Lernende Schule, 7(28), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krummheuer, G. (2011). Representation of the notion “learning-as-participation” in everyday situations of mathematics classes. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y.-A., & Takahashi, A. (2011). Lesson plans and the contingency of classroom interactions. Human Studies, 34(2), 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisen, J. (2010). Gesprächsführung. In J. Leisen (Ed.), Handbuch Sprachförderung im Fach. Sprachsensibler Fachunterricht in der Praxis (pp. 94–105). Bonn: Varus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, G. (1995). Turn design and the organization of particSipation in instructional activities. Discourse Processes, 19(1), 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F. (2010). Lernen im Beruf – Empirische Befunde zur Wirksamkeit von Lehrerfortbildung. In F. Müller, A. Eichenberger, M. Lüders & J. Mayr (Eds.), Lehrerinnen und Lehrer lernen – Konzepte und Befunde zur Lehrerfortbildung (pp. 51–72). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maas, U. (2008). Sprache und Sprachen in der Migrationsgesellschaft. Die schriftkulturelle Dimension. Göttingen: V & R Unipress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macbeth, D. (2004). The relevance of repair for classroom correction. Language in Society, 33(5), 703–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, C. (2008). Video recordings as pedagogical tools in mathematics teacher education. In D. Tirosh & T. Wood (Hrsg.), Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education. International Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 2, pp. 65–84). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, A., & Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study of parental styles in eliciting oral personal narratives and developing narrative skill. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (S. 217–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 182–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Williams Hall, M., & Resnick, L. B. (2013). Accountable talk sourcebook. For classroom conversation that works. Pittsburgh: Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morek, M. (2012). Kinder erklären. Interaktionen in Familie und Unterricht im Vergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morek, M., & Heller, V. (2012). Bildungssprache – Kommunikative, epistemische, soziale und interaktive Aspekte ihres Gebrauchs. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 57(1), 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubrand, M., Seago, N., Agudelo-Valderrama, C., DeBlois, L., & Leikin, R. (2009). The balance of teacher knowledge: Mathematics and pedagogy. In R. Even & D. L. Ball (Eds.), The professional education and development of teachers of mathematics (pp. 211–225). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm, D. (1987). Speaking mathematically: Communication in mathematics classrooms. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prediger, S. (2005). “Auch will ich Lernprozesse beobachten, um besser Mathematik zu verstehen.” Didaktische Rekonstruktion als mathematikdidaktischer Forschungsansatz zur Restrukturierung von Mathematik. Mathematica didactica, 28(2), 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prediger, S., & Erath, K. (2014). Content or interaction, or both? Synthesizing two German traditions in a video study on learning to explain in mathematics classroom microcultures. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(4), 313–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quasthoff, U. M. (1997). Mündliches Erzählen, Berichten, Schildern, Beschreiben im Deutschunterricht: Umrisse einer Diskursdidaktik. In R. Köhnen (Ed.), Wege zur Kultur: Perspektiven für einen integrativen Deutschunterricht (pp. 155–169). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quasthoff, U. M. (2012). Globale und lokale Praktiken in unterschiedlichen diskursiven Genres: Globale und lokale Anforderungen in unterschiedlichen diskursiven Genres: Wie lösen L2-Sprecher globale Anforderungen bei eingeschränkter sprachstruktureller Kompetenz im Deutschen? In H. Roll & A. Schilling (Eds.), Mehrsprachiges Handeln im Fokus von Linguistik und Didaktik (pp. 47–65). Duisburg: Universitätsverlag. Rhein-Ruhr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quasthoff, U. M. (in press). Ko-Konstruktion in Erwachsenen-Kind Interaktionen: Membership und der Erwerb von sprachlicher Kompetenz. To appear in U. Dausendschön-Gay, E. Gülich & U. Kraft (Eds.), Ko-Konstruktionen als interaktive Verfahren. Bielefeld: Transcript.

  • Quasthoff, U. M., & Krah, A. (2012). Familiale Kommunikation als Spracherwerbsressource: Das Beispiel argumentativer Kompetenzen. In E. Neuland (Ed.), Sprache der Generationen (pp. 115–132). Mannheim: Duden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rex, L. A., & Green, J. L. (2007). Classroom discourse and interaction: Reading across the traditions. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), International handbook of educational lnguistics (pp. 571–584). London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R. (2012). Zur Multimodalität von Unterstützungsinteraktion. Deutsche Sprache, 40(4), 343–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bermann, J., et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10(1), 353–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sert, O. (2013). ‘Epistemic status check’ as an interactional phenomenon in instructed learning settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setati, M., & Adler, J. (2000). Between languages and discourses: Language practices in primary multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43(3), 243–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2005). What could be more practical than good research? On mutual relations between research and practice of mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58(3), 393–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G. (2007). The development of teachers’ professional vision in video clubs. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron & S. J. Derry (Hrsg.), Video research in the learning siences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J., van Eerde, H. A. A., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualisation of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 817–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., & Ucelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M., & Yoon, C. (2014). The impact of conflicting goals on mathematical teaching decisions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(3), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh, D., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). Tools and processes in mathematics teacher education. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, A.-M. (2015). What really counts in mathematical communication—reconstruction of teachers’ professional vision concerning important aspects of classroom interaction. To appear in Proceedings of CERME 9, Prague. (in press).

  • Wald, B. (1978). Zur Einheitlichkeit und Einleitung von Diskurseinheiten. In U. Quasthoff (Ed.), Sprachstruktur – Sozialstruktur. Zur linguistischen Theorienbildung (pp. 128–149). Königstein: Scriptor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, S. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The research project INTERPASS—Interactive procedures of establishing matches and divergences for linguistic and microcultural practices”—is funded by the German ministry BMBF (grant 01JC1112). We are conducting it together with Kirstin Erath and thank her and the involved teachers for their valuable contributions. This paper transcends the reconstructive project in the direction of professional development, which we consider an important result.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dortmund, Germany

    Susanne Prediger, Uta Quasthoff, Anna-Marietha Vogler & Vivien Heller

Authors
  1. Susanne Prediger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uta Quasthoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna-Marietha Vogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vivien Heller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Prediger.

Appendix

Appendix

The sequences were transcribed according to the Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT) (Selting et al. 2009). The transcripts were translated from German to English and simplified for enhancing readability and for avoiding translation:

[comment] comments, non

verbal utterances or gestures are given in brackets in italics

[…] signifies omitted parts of the transcript

[breaks 3.5 sec.] breaks longer than 3 s are indicated

EMPHASIS is referred to complete words instead of syllables

; signifies falling voice

, signifies rising voice

. signifies finally falling voice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prediger, S., Quasthoff, U., Vogler, AM. et al. How to Elaborate What Teachers Should Learn? Five Steps for Content Specification of Professional Development Programs, Exemplified By “Moves Supporting Participation in Classroom Discussions”. J Math Didakt 36, 233–257 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-015-0075-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-015-0075-z

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Search

Navigation